Friday, April 17, 2015

Why Toleration Conquered the West

Have you ever considered why separation of church and
state evolved, why we are more religiously tolerant today than in the past?

At one time, church and state intertwined and
tolerance was a minority opinion. Even prior to establishment of a
Constitutional Republic in the United States, there was quite a bit of
church-state entanglement. The results were often bloody and always nasty. Even
when only Protestant Christians had their rights respected, they frequently and
repeatedly turned on one another even to the point of killing people for being
the wrong kind of Protestant Christian. There was never a Judeo-Christian
heritage, because the colonies routinely excluded Jews and Catholics from
having legal rights and some colonies refused to allow either to settle there.

Bloody persecution of Christians, by Christians, in the colonies, was mild in
comparison to the centuries of bloodshed in Europe over which form of
Christianity should be imposed on everyone. Martin Luther explained: “In a country
there must be one preaching only allowed.” Other forms of preaching were
considered rebellion and Luther spoke of how to deal with such matters: “Let
everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly and openly, remembering that
nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful or devilish than a rebel.” While the
bloody history of Catholicism is well known, mainly due to publishing efforts
of Protestants, the genocidal impulse in Protestantism has not been so duly
noted.

Luther is a good example of Protestant intolerance. In
1525 he said Catholic mass should be forcibly suppressed as blasphemy. In 1530,
he said Anabaptists should be put to death. In 1536, he said Jews should be
forced out of the country. His view was that the State should enforce Christian
teaching, more particularly Luther’s teachings, by force. “The public authority
is bound to repress blasphemy, false doctrine and heresy, and to inflict
corporal punishment on those that support such things.”

Many people today have no idea that Europe was plunged
into a series of wars, over a period of about 150 years, all between competing
sects of Christians intent on wiping out other forms of Christianity. The last
such major war was the Thirty Years’ War, from 1618-1648. Direct and indirect
casualties in the war amounted to between 15% and 30% of all Germans. In Czech
areas, population declined by about one-third as a result of the war and as a
result of diseases spread because of the conflict. It is thought that Swedish
armies destroyed as many as one-third of all towns in Germany. Estimates are
that this period of Christian conflict resulted in the deaths of 7 million
people. R.J. Rummel estimates the death toll higher, at 11.5 million. An
objective look at the history of Christian conflicts caused Prof. Perez Zagorin
to conclude: “Of all the great world religions past and present, Christianity
has been by far the most intolerant.” Even Aquinas, held up as an advocate of
reason, said that if the state executed forgers it could “with much more
justice” take heretics and “immediately upon conviction, be not only
excommunicate but also put to death.” Zagorin says: “None of the Protestant
churches—neither the Lutheran Evangelical, The Zwinglian, the Calvinist
Reformed nor the Anglican—were tolerant or acknowledged any freedom to
dissent.” [How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West,
Princeton University Press, 2003.]

Just during the short reign of England’s Catholic
Queen Mary I (1554-1558) some 300 Protestants were burned at the stake for
heresy. And in 1572 Catholics in France went on the rampage over a period of
several weeks, rounding up and massacring Protestants. Death tolls are uncertain,
but believed to range from 5,000 to 30,000. Of course, in the name of Jesus,
neither women nor children were spared the sword.

So, what were some reasons that traditional
intolerance and violence amongst Christians ended? There are several. One is
that bloodshed had become intolerable and Christians grew weary of constantly
slaughtering one another. While that played a role in the matter, it was not
the prime reason.

Other explanations exist as well and each played a
role. One is that the Enlightenment took place and there was a burst of
rationality on the continent. This rationality not only lead to a rise in
scientific progress, but it also meant that more and more Europeans had become
skeptical of Christianity. Orthodox Christianity was being undermined from the
inside, leading to a diminution of its influence. Within Catholicism, the
Scholastic revolution of Aquinas had already revived an interest in reason.

Protestantism, however, was a very different thing.
Much of the impetus of the Reformation was to attack these worrisome influences
of human reasoning. Luther and Calvin both opposed the use of reason to draw
conclusions about truth. Contrary to imaginations of Protestant apologists, the
Reformation was the enemy of reason, not an ally. Prof. Frederick Beisner, in
his important history, The Sovereignty of Reason [Princeton University
Press, 1996], writes:

…The early theology of the Reformation cannot be
regarded as the forerunner, still less as the foundation, of modern
rationalism. Rather, it is its antithesis, indeed its nemesis, an attempt to
revive the spirit and outlook of medieval Augustinianism. Luther’s and Calvin’s
aim was to restore this Augustinian tradition—its teachings concerning faith,
grace, sin, and predestination—by purging it of all its pagan and scholastic
[Thomistic] accretions.

Beisner’s important book shows how the Reformation
religions of the Protestants were themselves later reformed. Thomas Hooker, in
his work Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie [1593], revived
an interest in reason among Protestants. His defense of reason was the “revival
of the scholastic, natural law tradition, and in particular that of Aquinas and
Suarez, which had been cast overboard by Luther and Calvin.” Hooker influenced
one of the great liberals of the Enlightenment, John Locke.

Later the circle of scholars and theologians who had
gathered together, under the sponsorship of Lord Falkland, known as the Tew Circle, emphasized reason as well. While orthodox Protestants, they held reason
as the only means of understanding religion. In fact, reason was allowed to
judge religion and draw conclusions. These men became an influence on the more
radical skeptics in the free thought movement later. They argued that faith
could only come through reason, not from grace. They opposed the predestination
theory of Calvin and Luther, believing salvation was obtained by good works,
not by grace, and they believed in toleration of others.

They were followed by the Cambridge Platonists, a
group of scholars at Cambridge, who “went several strides beyond Hook and Great
Tew in the direction of a greater rationalism. To begin with, they were the
first thinkers in the English Protestant tradition to develop a systematic
natural theology.” Beisner writes that they “affirmed the principle of the
sovereignty of reason. They saw reason as the final rule of faith, a standard
higher than Scripture, inspiration, or tradition.” In other words, while the original
Reformation was actually a step-backwards for modernity, the Reformation was
later reformed by a series of thinkers who reintroduced the hated Aristotelian
forms of thinking.

The forefathers of modern libertarianism, the
classical liberals, first campaigned for freedom of conscience. They wanted to
limit the power of the state because the state was the instrument by which
intolerant church policies were imposed on the public. The church, preferring
to not have blood on its hands directly, left the killing to the state. So the
state imposed theological order at the point of the gun—or more accurately at
the time, at the point of the sword. Transgressors would be identified and
executed, often at the stake. But what the state was doing was entirely at the
behest of the church. The church is pretty much a toothless dog when it doesn’t
have access to state power: It can bark, but it can’t bite.

As liberalism reduced state power, it directly reduced
the ability of the church to impose theological conformity. What we saw, with
the unleashing of human reason, was growth in skepticism, a desire for natural,
scientific explanations for reality, limitation of the state, and the rise of a
depoliticized, or capitalist, market system. As Sir Samuel Brittan put it:
"The breakdown of theological authority, the rise of scientific spirit and
the growth of capitalism were inter-related phenomena."

More and more, individuals began to think for
themselves regarding religion. And the result was a splintering of the church.
Instead of one “holy mother church” sitting astride Europe, numerous sects
began to evolve. At first this splintering meant a bloodbath, as each sect
tried to jockey for monopoly privileges and access to the swords of the state.
This is precisely why the series of religious wars were fought, as an attempt
to destroy diversity of thought and impose conformity.

This splintering reduced the power of the church as a
whole by spreading it among various sects. No one sect was guaranteed enough
power to successful grab control of the state. If it tried, it would face
opposition from the other sects, not because they favored freedom of thought, but
because they feared repression for themselves. Voltaire [Lettres
philosophiques, 1734] noted: “If one religion only were allowed in England,
the Government would very possibly become arbitrary; if there were but two, the
people would cut one another’s throats; but as there are such a multitude, they
all live happy and in peace.”

We found that in the history of the United States.
Prior to the formation of the constitutional union, each state was independent
and free. And the states tended to be dominated by one sect or another. Using
that dominance, the church would then use state power to oppress other,
minority sects. Jews, Catholics, Quakers and Baptists were favored targets of
the state sanctioned church.

Yet when the Constitution was written the First
Amendment explicitly rejected a church-state alliance. This was not because the
majority of founders had seen the light about the evils of a church dominating
a state, but rather because none could be sure that their church would be the
one that would dominate. No one sect dominated the nation as a whole. While
Anglicans dominated Virginia they had no power in Massachusetts. The
Congregationalists, who controlled Massachusetts, had no influence in
Pennsylvania.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison worked to end state
sanctioned religion in Virginia, but only succeeded when other faiths had
immigrated to the state in sufficient numbers to undermine Anglican dominance.
Freedom of religion came about, not because the various sects had adopted
liberal values, but because each of them was unsure they could control the
state when it came time to name the sanctioned church.

Capitalism is not just the result of more freedom; it
is also the cause of new freedoms. Capitalism undermines the ability of the
state to impose conformity. Technology encourages diversity of thought, which
challenges any theological claim to monopolize what is true, or good for man.

There is a marvelous section in Victor Hugo’s Notre
Dame de Paris [1831], where he depicts a printing press. Through the window
we see the cathedral. Inside a man is standing. He points first at the press,
and then to the cathedral, saying: “this will destroy that. The Book will
destroy the Edifice.” Hugo wrote further:

To our mind, this thought has two aspects. In the
first place it was a view pertaining to the priest—it was the terror of the
ecclesiastic before a new force—printing. It was the servant of the dim
sanctuary scared and dazzled by the light that streamed from Gutenberg’s press.

It is no accident that capitalism and free speech are
so frequently present together. The free flow of information, ideas and
technology is essential in the modern age. We live in an age of information.
The computer, the microchip, the fax, television, and cinema have created a
universe in which the barriers to information and new ideas fail everywhere.
Efforts to restrain free speech limit not only intellectual freedom, but result
in a stultified and failed economic system. It is no accident that communism
collapsed as this age came to fruition. Communist systems were unable to
compete in the new technology and the new economies based upon the computer.
The explosive mix of free speech, fax machines, and computers has created a
universal knowledge and appreciation of the achievement of democracy and
capitalism. (The Theory of Truly Free Speech, Nicholas Wolfson, 60 University of Cincinnati Law Review 1, 1991.)

Capitalism also rewarded tolerance. This is important.
Merchants found that the most beneficial trade they could make was often with
someone of a different faith or creed. Refusal to trade with them meant lost
opportunities and foregone profits. Again, Voltaire noticed this as well:

Take a view of the Royal Exchange in London, a place
more venerable than many courts of justice, where the representatives of all
nations meet for the benefit of mankind. There the Jew, the Mahometan [Muslim],
and the Christian transact together, as though they all professed the same
religion, and give the name of infidel to none but bankrupts. There the
Presbyterian confides in the Anabaptist, and the Churchman depends on the
Quaker's word.At the
breaking up of this pacific and free assembly, some withdraw to the synagogue,
and others to take a glass. This man goes and is baptized in a great tub, in
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: that man has his son's foreskin
cut off, whilst a set of Hebrew words (quite unintelligible to him) are mumbled
over his child. Others retire to their churches, and there wait for the
inspiration of heaven with their hats on, and all are satisfied.

Commerce rewards tolerance by increasing the number of
trading possibilities. Trade undermines prejudice in all areas: be it
religious, ethnic, racial or sexual. Bigotry flourishes when the bigot can pass
the cost of such practices on to the entire society, but when he must bear the
direct costs of his prejudice he is more reluctant to do so. Some may still
prefer to engage in traditional, prejudicial practices, but they are at a
competitive disadvantage to competitors who fail to do so. Brittan said, “Capitalist
civilization is above all rationalist.” The entrepreneur, as a profit maximizer
is forced to ignore the “traditional, mystical or ceremonial justification of
existing practices.” This rejection of the traditional, means depoliticized
markets are inherently anti-conservative. The gay marriage debate is a good
example. Private businesses have largely adopted measures to recognize gay
relationships among their employees. It is the political sphere that is behind
the times. The state rarely forces change. Most of the time it is an impediment
to social changes and only plays catch-up once the cultural revolution is over.

Businessmen, who rely on voluntary exchange, have long
been leaders of movements that undermine traditional prejudices. People who
trade want more trading options, not less, and prejudicial policies limit the
number of options. Henry Kamen, in The Rise of Toleration [McGraw Hill,
1967], wrote:

The expansion of commercial capitalism, particularly
in Europe’s two principal maritime powers, Holland and England, was a powerful
factor in the destruction of religious restrictions. Trade was usually a stronger
argument than religion. Catholic Venice in the sixteenth century was reluctant
to close its ports to the ships of the Lutheran Hanseatic traders. The English
wool interest spent the first half of the seventeenth century in energetic
opposition to the anti-Spanish policy of the government. By the Restoration in
1660 it was widely held that trade knows no religious barriers; the important
corollary that followed from this was that the abolition of religious barriers
would promote trade.

In his Political
Arithmetic, written in 1670 but only published twenty years later, Sir
William Petty said “for the advancement of trade… indulgence must be granted in
matters of opinion.” Even opponents of trade recognized this true, and said it
was one reason to oppose trade. Samuel Parker’s A Discourse on
Ecclesiastical Politie [1669], said “tis notorious that there is not any
sort of people so inclinable to seditious practices as the trading part of a
nation.” The chaplain to the Earl of Berkeley warned, “that the great outcry
for liberty of trade is near of kin to that of liberty of conscience.”